Q-space theory. 3rd article has been published.

[Qspacer]

Hi again Vincent,

You are a fountain of knowledge. The links that you have supplied me are amazingly interesting. Also thanks for notifying me about the FET theory.

It will take me a lot of time to properly explore UVS. But I have begun and I wish to continue. Generally, Q-space has many common conclusions with UVS (and also with the FET theory), but differs in some matters. Many of these conclusions have not yet been published and I find encouragement when I see how others have reached the same conclusions from totally different directions.

I wish to be careful with what I write and not make careless mistakes, thus I will relate only to issues, which I have greater confidence in:

Relating to your link:

...You can start from "The model of UVS", the starting paragraph is its synopsis and the first section summarizes the model...

I have the following comments:

The assumption that our universe is a "clockwork universe" is not accurate (according to Q-space). Nevertheless, Q-space does conclude (as a theorem from more fundamental postulates) that there is an absolute reference system. Not everything is relative like in Einstein's relativity. There is equivalence to a universal clock, but that which is ticking in unity is not time as we are usual to experience. It is a type energy supply that would properly be defined and understood in later articles.

Q-space concludes that mass is generated as a vortex of energy. When mass is condensed its vortex properties may be generalized to larger scales. I don't know yet if it can be generalized to the whole universe but you have caused me to think in that direction too.

Personally I did not use the idea of ether in Q-space theory. You can do with out it for the foundations. But if you relate to space-time itself as the ether (as you proposed), then there might be a possibility to combine the fundamental ether vortex idea of UVS with certain conclusions of Q-space. This combination may simplify complicated calculation in Q-space. The whole subject demands me to study UVS in greater detail.

" Unisonal vortex is a vortically warped surface of nothingness in the form of void that emerges on the surface of viscous matter, it is a naturally created free vortex that primarily wobbles in a two-axis spin…"

I have a problem with your "nothingness". I think that you intuitively have an important insight here, but the nothingness too must be defined and the reason why it seems to emerge in the context of matter must be further understood. Q-space, in its later stages will address these issues in much greater detail.

Q-space does not allow the existence of any continuous physical entity. Do you regard the ether and/or the nothingness as continuous?

The assumption that our universe is created from a "conceptual space" is appealing and I know that it comes from a deep insight. But it remains too general in UVS. The actual essence of conceptual spaces must be defined in a rigorous logic structure and it should be obvious how the physical is created from the conceptual. At its current phrasing, I find this connection to be too vague. Anyway, Q-space will later supply better tools to create this interesting connection.

This would be all for now. I will keep on investigating UVS, but it will probably take a lot of time. I have only one hour per day (in average) to spare for physics (this includes the work on my 4th article in addition to responding to mails and forum). Thus, my pace is slow.

Goodbye for now

Roi

[Qspacer]

Hi Vincent,
I forgot to relate to your last comment:

"You should be aware that time dilation effect and gravitational time dilation are fundamentally two different concepts and they are basically incompatible."

Actually, in Q-space both types of time dilation will be compatible. They are two manifestations of the same phenomena.

Roi

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

Hi Roi,

Hi again Vincent,

You are a fountain of knowledge. The links that you have supplied me are amazingly interesting. Also thanks for notifying me about the FET theory.

It will take me a lot of time to properly explore UVS. But I have begun and I wish to continue. Generally, Q-space has many common conclusions with UVS (and also with the FET theory), but differs in some matters. Many of these conclusions have not yet been published and I find encouragement when I see how others have reached the same conclusions from totally different directions.

What does Q-space has in common conclusions with UVS?

Relating to your link:

I have the following comments:

The assumption that our universe is a "clockwork universe" is not accurate (according to Q-space). Nevertheless, Q-space does conclude (as a theorem from more fundamental postulates) that there is an absolute reference system. Not everything is relative like in Einstein's relativity. There is equivalence to a universal clock, but that which is ticking in unity is not time as we are usual to experience. It is a type energy supply that would properly be defined and understood in later articles.

I can understand your view from the perspective of spacetime distortion model that space and time are elastic. UVS is based on absolute space and time and postulates absolute vortical motion of aether.

Q-space concludes that mass is generated as a vortex of energy.

I have not read your article on mass is generated as a vortex of energy, did I miss it in your articles or was it not put up in your website yet?

When mass is condensed its vortex properties may be generalized to larger scales. I don't know yet if it can be generalized to the whole universe but you have caused me to think in that direction too.

UVS in a single model postulates that aether vortical motion occurs from cosmic scale to subatomic scale, this is supported with immutable evidence at all levels. Unisonal vortex is the archetype for all discrete matters; the manifestations in vortical motion of a scalar medium that pervades the Universe in absolute time and space. It is generalized for the whole universe and you can reference it with the UVS model to explore your Q-space in this direction.

Personally I did not use the idea of ether in Q-space theory. You can do with out it for the foundations. But if you relate to space-time itself as the ether (as you proposed), then there might be a possibility to combine the fundamental ether vortex idea of UVS with certain conclusions of Q-space. This combination may simplify complicated calculation in Q-space. The whole subject demands me to study UVS in greater detail.

To do away with aether is like doing away with gaseous entity in the atmosphere to describe phenomena such as bending light path in the denser medium. Substituting it with spacetime distortion concept with higher gravitational potential with its density following the principle of inverse-square law it would still correlates mathematically, but does it mean that nothing exist in the atmosphere? Or atmosphere is not needed as the foundations for the theory? This is making claim that does away with reality of nature.

See a topic on sunrise that elaborates on the effect of Earth’s atmosphere that renders the optical illusion of sunrise and sunset from one point of view. Light bends in gravitation potential, or it bends in a denser medium of atmosphere? The scientific proof for relativity with the 1919 solar eclipse negative image taken by Eddington proved a fact or was it a myth based on a belief system?

" Unisonal vortex is a vortically warped surface of nothingness in the form of void that emerges on the surface of viscous matter, it is a naturally created free vortex that primarily wobbles in a two-axis spin…"

I have a problem with your "nothingness". I think that you intuitively have an important insight here, but the nothingness too must be defined and the reason why it seems to emerge in the context of matter must be further understood. Q-space, in its later stages will address these issues in much greater detail.

nothingness - A state of existence beyond perceivable bandwidth therefore renders as nothing in the perceived state; the state of being nothing.

Like you have said in your Q-space article : “If you keep on reading the following articles, I believe that everything will eventually be clear.” Line 131 in article one of Q-space.

Q-space does not allow the existence of any continuous physical entity. Do you regard the ether and/or the nothingness as continuous?

I understands your question is a query on UVS for its stand of the physical entity is wave, or particle; continuous or discrete.

Wave is what discrete object does, therefore the concept of continuous physical entity is a fallacy. Point particle is a vortically resonated charge at a location in absolute space, therefore a discrete particle is a relative motion illusion. See a section for "Electron's motion” in a topic on “The structure of an atom”.

“There is no space empty of field.” - Albert Einstein

From the UVS perspective, it is neither. It is absolute vortical motion of an all-pervasive scalar field at superluminal speed; this renders the duality of wave-particle for physical entity. It is a wave structure at one reference frame and it is a point particle on another reference frame. Like a pond of stagnant water that is apparently still in a continuous form, we know in quantum mechanic that nothing is at absolute rest; in fact everything in it is spinning in perpetual motion in their discrete forms at quantum state.

However, superluminar speed is immeasurable with current technology and its vortically rendered entity could only be indirectly detected with bending electromagnetic radiation. This suggests that planck length is merely a measurement limit at the speed of light; anything such as the definite size of the Universe and the definite number of atoms in it defined with this constant are merely assumptions of a belief system.



limited by post size.....continued....

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

The assumption that our universe is created from a "conceptual space" is appealing and I know that it comes from a deep insight. But it remains too general in UVS. The actual essence of conceptual spaces must be defined in a rigorous logic structure and it should be obvious how the physical is created from the conceptual. At its current phrasing, I find this connection to be too vague. Anyway, Q-space will later supply better tools to create this interesting connection.

I look forward to see Q-space creating this interesting connection with better tools.

UVS is focused on qualitative evaluation by solving cognitive paradoxes of natural phenomena in the Universe as its primary objective; this is already a huge undertake. This is the foremost for UVS research and the rest are in the details, see a topic on validity analysis. In rigorous logic structure begging for further inquiry it arrive to the assumption that space is conceptual, the logic and reasoning for “conceptual space” is mentioned in “Logic and belief systems”, an external reference is also made on "Existence of Higher dimensional space & Perception of time" that presents a concept of Universe that is apparently infinite from a localized perception of reality.

The entity of an aether unit is quantified in an Aether Physic Model by David Thomson, in quantum mechanics he claims to provides a mathematically correct unified force theory based on a Gforce acting on aether with primary angular momentum. Gforce would be the positive pressure that render the negative pressure of cosmological constant (aka dark energy) as postulated with Einstein Universe. I agrees with much of his postulations except on the fundamental structure of the aether unit, UVS saw it as one torus-shaped bipolar vortical spheroid in a two stroke cyclical motion with dipole moment in absolute time and space instead of two spherical vortices in a five-dimensional render. See a topic on “Aether vortical motion”.

However, his theory offers good insights for quantitative studies in quantum mechanics of aether and he provides a very interesting experiment to support his claim with a Magnetic Scalar Wave detector.

This would be all for now. I will keep on investigating UVS, but it will probably take a lot of time. I have only one hour per day (in average) to spare for physics (this includes the work on my 4th article in addition to responding to mails and forum). Thus, my pace is slow.

No worry, please take your time. I admire people who takes effort and the steps out to inquire on nature. And with only one hour per day to spare for physics I would say you have already done quite a bit in you Q-space quest.

Best to you.

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

Hi Vincent,
I forgot to relate to your last comment:

"You should be aware that time dilation effect and gravitational time dilation are fundamentally two different concepts and they are basically incompatible."

Actually, in Q-space both types of time dilation will be compatible. They are two manifestations of the same phenomena.

Roi

For time dilation effect of SR, an observer at point B does not agree the time dilated observation of point B from point A. This is a relative motion paradox and both observers dispute with the other observer.

For gravitational time dilation of GR, the observer at point B agrees the time dilated observation of point B from point A. There is no dispute with both observers.

For the relativity perspective these time dilation phenomena are not compatible. You would have to elucidate how Q-space postulates these two types of time dilation are compatible to support your claim.


From the perspective of classical physics in Euclidean space with absolute time, when an observer on Earth is looking at a moving away galaxy cluster that is 100 million light years away and appears to be five million light years in length in the moving away direction, the nearer end of the moving away galaxy cluster is a time dilated image of 100 million light years while the further end is a time dilated image of 105 million light years, the actual length of the observed galaxy cluster would be longer than the optically observed length of five million light years. The phenomenon of length contraction is an optical illusion caused by time dilation effect.

The phenomenon of relativity is valid but it need not be a 4D spacetime model that is merely an equivalent in principle that does not refer to reality for whatsoever reason. See a topic on "The vortex legacy of Albert Einstein".

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

Hi Roi,

I have created a simple thought experiment for intuitive understanding of time dilation effect, length contraction and length extension. Let me know what you think about it.

If a non elastic rod of one light-year long is pushed away from an observer by a short distance of z in space in the direction of the rod over an insignificant period of time (say one hour) at low speed (say 100 km/h), although the rod from end to end would move instantaneously by a distance of z, the observer would see that the rod is contracted by the length of z, the time dilated image of the rod at the far end that had moved to the distance of z would take one year to reach the observer. Another observer at the far end of the rod would see that the rod is being extended by the length of z. This simple thought experiment demonstrates that the phenomena of length contraction and length extension are optical illusions caused by time dilation effect.

Best to you.

[Qspacer]

Hi Vincent,

I have read your interesting replies. Hopefully, I will have the time to supply a comprehensive answer within a few weeks (before the end of April).

Roi

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

Hi Vincent,

I have read your interesting replies. Hopefully, I will have the time to supply a comprehensive answer within a few weeks (before the end of April).

Roi

Hi Roi,

No hurry, please take your time.

While contemplating on your Q-space after going through "The highlights of Q-space", I came across another paper on "COMPLETED EINSTEIN GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY" by Nimit Theeraleekul. He postulates that energy is a real substance, similar to your "Q", however, he postulate three scalar spatial spaces with absolute time.

Like your effort in Q-space, he strives to reach out in a manner that his theorem could be intuitively understood. An interesting thing about his theory is he amalgamates relativity with quantum mechanic, and yet to my surprise he could comprehensively explain time dilation to my agreement.

IMHO he is basically correct in his context in equivalence principles that substitutes aether with "Vacuum medium space-time" for his amalgamation for his relativity theory and quantum mechanic theory.

FYI, UVS postulates that energy is a measurement.

For intuitive understanding of natural phenomena, kind regards.

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

Once we will assume that “Q” is actually what we call “energy” we will see
how Lorenz’s equations appear immediately out of energy considerations!

I see your above postulation as an eqivalence principle that could explain empirical observations of nature.

However, the original Lorentz transformation is based on existensce of an aether medium in absolute time and space. After scientific consensus had falsified the existence of aether with the Michelson and Morley experiment, this theory was then modified by others to adapt to non-existence of aether in Minkowski space with an invariant quantity of Lorentz scalar with mathematical treatments.

Neither Albert Michelson nor Edward Morley had ever considered that their experiment had disproven the aether hypothesis. It was others such as Heaviside who had done that.

So to speak, the original Lorentz transformation based on existensce of an aether medium in absolute time and space, IMHO, is the correct model to explain the relativity concept that refers to physical reality.

[Vincent Wee-Foo]

Hi Roi,

FYI, UVS approach is focused on qualitative evaluation like I have mentioned in the previous post. I am aware that this is not a familiar methodology in modern physics that is more focused on quantitative rigor. Let me illustrate an example for qualitative evaluation:

In the era when astronomers of Aristotelian Cosmology based on their observations had believed that Venus revolves around Earth like the Moon; at then the extreme crescent phase of Venus has been observed with the naked eye. Galileo through observations with telescope had observed that Venus exhibited a full set of phases similar to that of the Moon, he based on Copernicus's theory of heliocentrism to make a qualitative prediction on the orbiting path of Venus. Deliberated through validity analysis by inductive reasoning on Venus showed phases with a peculiarity after an extensive period of telescopic observation, he qualitatively proved the postulation that Venus orbits the Sun and not the Earth.



See external links on phases of Venus and an animated simulation for phases of Venus. Image above is a diagram of the orbit of Venus in relationship to the Earth.

Qualitative prediction is concerned with problems of building symbolic descriptions of processes, and using these descriptions for predicting a plausible continuation of these processes. It stresses the qualitative form of prediction as it does not seek precise characterization of future events, but rather a specification of plausible properties and constraints on the future events (Excerpt from CiteSeer). There is a distinct different between a qualitative prediction and a postulation; qualitative prediction is based on a scientific model while a postulation can be an assumption based on a conjecture, such as the assumption that luminiferous aether is a static medium.

I hope this would give you a better guideline when you explore UVS.

Best regards,